Memory Alpha:Category suggestions
---- In-universe categories Brain A subcat to Category:Anatomy with all the anatomical parts of the brain as well as things like neurotransmitters etc. There is a list on the brain page to start this category. :I like the idea, but is that the best name for it? How about "Nervous system"? --LauraCC (talk) 15:56, December 16, 2016 (UTC) ::"Brain anatomy" seems like the obvious term for what you seem to want to be doing. I too think that "brain" is a bit too vague: it seems like the proposed category would be intended for brain components, but if it's just called "brain" people might not get that and put things like "lobotomy", "cranial implant" or "aneurysm" in it. Otherwise, Support. -- Capricorn (talk) 08:17, December 18, 2016 (UTC) :I suppose if there are enough that fall into such a category, we could add "neurological conditions" as well. --LauraCC (talk) 18:29, December 22, 2016 (UTC) Holoprograms :This seems like diminishing returns from the 233 page Dixon Hill category. Are these pages too much for their articles? Are any of them they really in danger of being lost in the shuffle? - 17:04, December 30, 2016 (UTC) It's not that they wouldn't retain their other categorizations, just gain a new one. --LauraCC (talk) 17:06, December 30, 2016 (UTC) :I'm asking why, other than the fact that we have some for much larger and more inclusive programs, do we need these? The articles on the programs seem like they would be enough. - 17:40, December 30, 2016 (UTC) Consistency, chiefly. I wonder if you think Category:The Adventures of Flotter would have worked better as a template then. Separated by "stories", "characters", and "locations"? --LauraCC (talk) 17:42, December 30, 2016 (UTC) :Yeah, I don't think we "needed" that one either. We don't "need" templates to list links on pages where all the relevant subjects are already linked, and we don't "need" categories to group them together if the main article already does that. - 18:12, December 30, 2016 (UTC) It looks nicer, perhaps. And aids those who wish to find all related topics at a glance or who see the world differently (more visual learners than readers). To allow people of different learning styles/intelligence types to understand their way. I don't know. It doesn't have to be that way. It's just that there have been new templates created and old ones deleted, categories made into templates and vice versa...it's hard sometimes to know which more people will support or like. --LauraCC (talk) 18:15, December 30, 2016 (UTC) :Start with what problem you want to solve, and then ask yourself what the most natural solution is. Refine from there, making sure you have an actual problem and your solutions don't create more problems than they solve. That said, templates and categories go after subsections and lists on the hierarchy of solutions in a wiki. - 18:23, December 30, 2016 (UTC) My intention was to show/list things which are mentioned/seen in these programs. Maybe Dixon Hill should be weeded, or split into two: a) things seen/said when Picard plays the program and b)stuff from that lit Data was reading, like Silent Forrester. --LauraCC (talk) 18:29, December 30, 2016 (UTC) Numbered sectors and named sectors Subcat of Category:Sectors. More of an organizational thing than anything else. We can argue about whether a number is a name or not...the fact that there are both suggest that there's maybe some overlap, or it depends on who's designating it as such... --LauraCC (talk) 16:47, January 26, 2017 (UTC) :Oppose. Unnecessary subdivision of category on one page. - 17:33, January 27, 2017 (UTC) 20th-21st pre-warp spacefaring personnel (not the proposed name) See all the names at Space shuttle missions. Many are only listed in Category:Humans, which I feel is kind of sad, given the historical importance of their roles. This is what I really meant to do with this suggestion. Call it a better name if you can think of one. --LauraCC (talk) 20:40, January 26, 2017 (UTC) :Not addressing the reason the last suggestion failed isn't a good way to start here. Changing the name to something worse isn't helping either. - 21:13, January 26, 2017 (UTC) Now there are plenty more names (the scarcity of which on the "astronaut" page was mentioned the last time as being a reason why not), and they clearly also fall into a more important category than the bland category of "Humans" alone. I don't know what it would be a subcat of, and I welcome naming suggestions. Take G. Burdette, for example - beyond "Humans", they get the category of "Fleet Operations Center personnel". How about "shuttle personnel" or "NASA personnel"? (I like the latter better, myself) --LauraCC (talk) 21:16, January 26, 2017 (UTC) To my way of thinking, if the following hypothetical scenario happened - Hoshi Sato is in the middle of a park on Earth when Human Ensign Smith comes up to her in uniform and introduces his identical twin brother, who's in civilian clothing, saying, "I want you to meet my twin brother, Joe. Unlike me, he didn't choose Starfleet - he's an economist." and leaves it at that. "Joe Smith" would then (quite naturally) be categorized under "Category:Humans", because that's all we know about him. But these astronauts - even though they're just names on assignment patches - we know what they were beyond simply being Humans. Does anybody see my side? --LauraCC (talk) 16:20, January 27, 2017 (UTC) :So you want to exclude people like Christa McAuliffe, Julie Payette, Valeri Tokarev, and Ilan Ramon? They are not NASA personnel, they just flew on NASA's shuttles. Not to mention people like Yuri Gagarin, assuming a reference can actually make it on screen at some point. - 17:33, January 27, 2017 (UTC) No, I didn't. The category could include those who worked in conjunction with NASA (the page could explain this at the top). --LauraCC (talk) 17:35, January 27, 2017 (UTC) :Then your intention isn't a category for NASA personnel, and the name's wrong. - 17:37, January 27, 2017 (UTC) But my premise is sound? --LauraCC (talk) 17:39, January 27, 2017 (UTC) Earth inhabitants Would there be any value to having a category like this? It might be a good place for redirects to unnamed (non-Starfleet, mostly) people who live on Earth of any century, such as all those Unnamed Humans (20th century). Joseph Sisko could go there, as a civilian who lives on Earth, as opposed to the Humans on the Omicron colony. Vulcans like Mestral, (having decided to stay on Earth) would also fall into this category. --LauraCC (talk) 17:11, January 27, 2017 (UTC) :Oppose. Unnecessary with to many downsides. - 17:33, January 27, 2017 (UTC) There's so many San Francisco people, for instance. *19th c. - 16 entries + *20th c. -24 entries + *21st c. - 10 entries + *Alternate reality - 4 entries = 54 entries in "Unnamed Humans" pages alone (some with multiple people) I suppose I should have started there, with a list page suggestion first? --LauraCC (talk) 17:44, January 27, 2017 (UTC) Production POV categories E3 award winners and nominees Apparently Star Trek (video game) won some E3 awards (aka "Game Critics Awards") http://www.digitalextremes.com/news/2011/08/star-trek-wins-big-e3-2011, and Star Trek: Bridge Crew was nominated recently for best vr game. http://uploadvr.com/best-vr-games-awards-e3-2016/ I'm still unsure which one is the proper name for the award, hence my hesitation to add it to the awards page. --LauraCC (talk) 17:23, December 31, 2016 (UTC) Also, would the expo itself get its own page (like some magazines have, such as Prosthetics, which isn't an exclusively Trek publication) or a section on a general expo page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Entertainment_Expo --LauraCC (talk) 17:35, December 31, 2016 (UTC) Feel free to wait to answer the above question about a page until this discussion is moved to a category talk page (if it ever is). --LauraCC (talk) 21:38, January 24, 2017 (UTC) Puppeteers A subcat of "Category:Performers"(?) for all who operated puppets on a Star Trek production. * Alison Elbl * Bob Baker * Heide Pendergast * Dan Curry * John Fifer * Kevin D. Carlson * Alan McFarland * David Stipes * Paul Elliot * J.J. Abrams (tribble on ) * Tony Hudson (whales) * Mark Miller (whales) --LauraCC (talk) 16:57, January 12, 2017 (UTC) We have other options also: 1) include this list in a background note @ the in-universe article Puppeteer (which only has one reference) 2) create a real-world page (a la Stand-in) for this role (my preference if a category isn't made) --LauraCC (talk) 17:32, January 18, 2017 (UTC) I just wonder how the real-world article and the in-universe one would be disambiguated? "(Real world)"? "(Production)"? --LauraCC (talk) 19:00, January 18, 2017 (UTC) I previously disambiguated United States Postal Service in universe from United States Postal Service (real world) that way, but I don't particularly like that approach either. --LauraCC (talk) 19:20, January 19, 2017 (UTC) Anthologies Subcat of "Novels", for all books containing multiple separate stories. * Distant Shores * Constellations *Infinity's Prism *Echoes and Refractions *Shattered Light *Glass Empires *Obsidian Alliances *Shards and Shadows *Seven Deadly Sins *The New Voyages *Strange New Worlds (disambiguation) books *Star Trek: Enterprise Logs *The Sky's the Limit --LauraCC (talk) 20:13, January 26, 2017 (UTC) Maintenance categories